Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing that at most five proximity-ranked stores are inspected, that unreadable menus are skipped, that results are best-effort, and critically that an empty result does not mean no nearby merchant sells the item. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, no waste, and the structure is well front-loaded: purpose first, then mechanism, then the coverage limit and empty-result caveat that a caller most needs to avoid misinterpreting results.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return structure need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent would face: search scope, per-request store cap, skip behavior, and empty-result interpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds no syntax or meaning for query, tag, asapOnly, pickupOnly, dashPassOnly, maxDistanceMiles, or the coordinates, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search menu items across nearby DoorDash merchants') and distinguishes itself from the store-level doordash_search sibling by scoping to menu items rather than merchants. The mechanism sentence confirms the resource is store menus.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through the mechanism ('selects nearby candidate stores, then reads each store's menu') and the empty-result caveat, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings like doordash_store_menu, doordash_store_item, or doordash_search. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.